In this series regarding public relations (PR) tactics of ‘Managing the Message’ I’ve talked about how some organizations focus is centered on Reaction Avoidance (SEE:Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t) rather than public interaction. In a Social Media dominated world, this results in the organization always looking manipulative and weak.

In Part II (SEE:Public Relations Techniques That Kill Organizations) I discussed the use of Anti-listening techniques to avoid and limit public discussion of issues that an organization may not want to address. In this article we will discuss more sinister techniques used to by organizations to ‘manage the message.’

Managing the Message is the alpha and omega of the NRA

Managing the message inherently requires the belief that PR people have God-like powers over the public. Add an organizational executive team that already believes they are Gods and we have the perfect storm of ego and a lack of ethics that lead to the worst PR tactics in business. Under these circumstances we move from passive techniques to manage the message into an aggressive intent to distract and deceive.

There are many examples of aggressive attempts to manage the message and in almost every case there are people in key positions who see themselves as the maker of information and disinformation. These people believed that they have justification to take any step necessary to protect the public image of the organization and/or promote organizational goals, ethical or not. Distraction, withholding information, and deception are the rungs of the ladder that sink an organization into deeper and deeper into the dark side of PR.

Withholding InformationWithholding Information and/or blocking information is a tactic of an organization using aggressive and unethical PR tactics. One of the best examples of this is the National Rifle Association (NRA.) The NRA seems to only care about public opinion when the polls tend to support its position, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to manipulating public opinion.

In 1996, the NRA worked with Arkansas Representative Jay Dickey (R) to cut $2.6 million from the budget of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and added the wording the appropriations bill that restricted the CDC from any research that would “advocate or promote gun control.” $2.6 million is what the CDC had spent in the prior year on gun-related research. The 104th Republican-controlled Congress passed it into law and it has restricted the CDC from gun-related research since 1996. (¹)

The NRA worked with Kansas Representative Todd Tiahrt (R) in 2003, to forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) from collecting statistics on gun injuries and deaths. In 2011, the NRA worked with Representative Denny Rehberg (R) of Montana to prevent the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from funding any research that contradicted or challenged pro-NRA positions. (²)(³)

BP: What Leak?Another example of withholding information occurred in the summer of 2010 when the BP leased oil rig, Deepwater Horizon caught fire and exploded in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP public image destroyed once video revealed the PR deception

In the days after the complete loss of the rig, BP PR tactics included denial of an oil leak at the wellhead, acknowledging a small amount of oil leakage, and finally admitting larger and larger amounts of leaking oil that still underestimated the amount of actual oil spilled. At one point BP withhold live video of the oil spill at the wellhead.

BP’s public position was that until anyone could prove otherwise, they could deny any significant oil spill.BP’s ‘prove it’ stance forced public media to accept BP’s estimates until overwhelming evidence piled up against the company. Once it did, BP’s public image was in tatters. No one believed anything CEO Tony Hayward or BP said.

‘Armstronging’ the PublicTechnically the act of withholding information falls into the category of deception and distraction, although an organization that is consciously attempting to deceive or distract the public is flirting with possible criminal and/or civil charges. While some organizations (or even some people) might be under the belief that their unethical acts will never be discovered, some organizations may simply be trying to delay or soften a negative issue by forcing the public to learn the details over a period of days, weeks, months, or years. Yet, many times the PR tactics used by an organization is simply a lack of executive ethics rather than a conscious choice.

I cannot tell a lie…well, yes I can,…piece-o-cake actually

The most recent high-profile example this is the Lance Armstrong fiasco. The world now knows that Lance Armstrong used illegal performance enhancing drugs and techniques during his reign as Bicycling King, but through denial and aggressive legal means he managed to make most people believe he was innocent. Now he admits he lied, but it is far enough past his glory days that it may not have the impact it would have at the time he was active in the sport. Still, who wants to be Lance Armstrong now? No one.

The problem with managing the message is that Social Media has stolen power away from the PR people. An organization’s public image consists of the support and enthusiasm of an elusive mass of connected people, who can smell manipulation and love to expose unethical acts of people with more money than sense. On the other hand, Social Media readily responds to respect and honesty, which is not familiar territory to some older business men. As we move deeper into the Social Media Age, the business world will see a new PR model that listens more, talks less, is more humble and less arrogant, loves interaction and rejects domination.

If you are a business professor teaching students the importance of ‘managing the message,’ or a Public Relations (PR) firm telling your client how to ‘manage the message,’ would you please stop. No, I mean stop right now. In fact, contact everyone you have taught or advised and tell them you were wrong then refund their money.

CEO Tony Hayward got his ‘life back,’ but BP is still in PR clean up mode in the United States

‘Managing the message’ cost Mitt Romney the Presidential election. It severely damaged Netflix in 2011. It cost a BPCEO his job. It took the Susan G. Komen Foundation from being a major player in non-profit foundations to one that has to hide its name in shame.

Why?

First, ‘managing the message’ doesn’t work. Second, it’s a cowardly way to approach public relations. Third, it’s stupid advice. Fourth, it will end up causing major problems up to and including the end of an organization.

‘Managing the message’ assumes a person has control over the message. That would be a stupid assumption in a world driven by Social Media. John F. Kennedy’s words should be amended:

You can fool all of the people some of the time….until Social Media picks it up and then you’re screwed.

PR is no longer about creating an image. That was true back in the day individuals had no voice and people were subjected to mass advertising in every thing they watched, heard, and read. That was yesterday. Today an organization’s image is created by everyone who comes into contact with the organization. Customers, especially angry ones have as much of a voice in an organization’s public image as the Vice President of Marketing. Today PR is about listening and being honest and real in everything you say and do. That is something that can’t be faked or managed.

Reaction AvoidanceManaging the message is mostly about reaction avoidance. The idea is that if an organization handles it correctly, any negative situation will be minimized. The technique acts like a dam that has a short-term benefit, but a long-term disaster. When a PR crisis occurs the first instinct is to pretend there is no major problem. That is the start of a PR death spiral that only leads to bigger and bigger denials until the organization appears to be run by fools. By then executives turn and blame the PR staff for not ‘managing the message’ better.

Enough with the BP CEO bashing! Regardless of any verbal gaffs, or ill-advised yacht racing, if Tony Hayward, the shining star of BP, is guilty of anything he is only guilty of being the perfect CEO. A corporate executives first and last duty is to his investors and when we measure up Mr. Hayward he is, in fact, the very model of a modern corporate executive. If it please the court of the business world I’ll present my case:

POINT ONE: When he took the reins of BP (that does not stand for Bloody Petrol) he immediately weeded out all those people who, and I quote, “….wanted to save the world.” Saving the world is not the goal of business, making money is, and no one can say that Mr. Hayward didn’t make money for the investors of BP. Score one for the British! They’ve become as obsessive about profit as the an American conservative!

The Public Image of Tony Hayward...but it doesn't count

POINT TWO: After the fire and rescue of the victims from the platform Mr. Hayward’s legal team leapt into action to detain the survivors until they signed a release saying that they were not injured…which, in legalese is to say they were signing a waiver of all liability, not a just that they were not physically injured, but that BP could not be sued for any mismanagement, negligence, etc. This reflects devotion that Mr. Hayward and his team have for the investor. Duty first and last!

POINT THREE: Within hours of the disaster BP’s crack crisis response team sprung into action securing all information and potential access to protect the corporation from negative portrayals by the world media. First there was no oil leaking, then only 5,000 barrels, then, well, no comment. Carefully crafted statements were released to reassure the investors, (not the public,) that the event was a minor setback and the amount of oil would have a minimal impact on the excessive amount of water in the Gulf of Mexico. Textbook Public Relations work!

POINT FOUR: Unfortunately, BP could not hide massive oil slicks from the cameras of the media and that could scare the investors…but wait a minute…they could hide them by pouring millions of gallons of toxic dispersants on the oil at the point of origin! Yes, it would make collection the oil impossible, but that was save-the-world thinking, and this was not the time to shirk the duty to the investor with ethics. Again, Mr. Hayward shows us his stuff!

POINT FIVE: The pièce de résistance (my apologies to the British for resorting to French) was the yacht race that Tony Hayward took leave of the United States to attend. As outrage among the American public reached a fever pitch it was a stroke of genius by a perfect corporate executive to again restore order with the investors by demonstrating that this oil spill event is all much ado about nothing and normal aristocratic life is alive and well in this man’s corporation.

It is true that not since King George III have the average, non-conservative American been so incensed with a British national, but the public is passé (again my apologies for using French) in the corporate world, especially in the world of big oil companies. The public will trade ethics for petrol (I’m trying to compensate for using French by using British words) any day of the week. The public’s role is to buy their product, not tell them how to obtain it. Tony Hayward has been true-blue to the investors…I wouldn’t be surprised if his urine is blue! No one can dispute that as a model of the corporate executive, Tony is the best of the best.